Density

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

Density is needed.

I'm pretty sure you don't understand what density is.

First of all, it's either Urban Density, or Population Density, depending on which approach to the conversation you're taking.

Second of all, density is needed? What does that even mean?

Let's do some grade school math: If Portland's population increases, that means "density" increases. Period. Portland's land area isn't growing, so... if the number of people in Portland's boundaries increases it means Portland's "density" increases. If Portland's population is 580,000 and 58,000 more people move here, since Portland's boundary isn't expanding, it means Portland's "density" increased by 10%. Again, that's grade school math.

Saying we need "density" is like Noah, before the flood, saying he needs water. The flood is coming. "Density" is coming. Saying we need it shows that you don't understand what "density" is.

Thanks to our urban growth boundary, Portland will infill rather than sprawl out. Hooray for our urban growth boundary!!! We've got guaranteed "density" (urban density or population density). And that's a good thing for us, so long as we figure out how to control the negative aspects that come along with that increased "density."

"Density" causes the price of housing to escalate. Period. It does. It does in NY. It does in San Fran. It does in Boston. It does in Walla Walla. Even in the slums of Beijing or Mumbai, "density" causes the cost of housing to escalate.

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

no, we're not building for non existent people. They will move here. It's where we decide to put them that's important

Whoa whoa whoa, hold on. Where WE decide to PUT THEM?
Who is this "we" you speak of, and how is it our right to decide where to "put them"?

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

Density does, however, stabilize rents if there's a shortage.

No. It doesn't.

Population density CREATES THE SHORTAGE. Population density is a measurement of the population in a defined area. If you increase the population in a defined area ("density"), you get increased competition for housing, because there are more people in a defined area.

[PDXDENSITY]

Originally Posted by 2oh1

No. It doesn't.

Population density CREATES THE SHORTAGE. Population density is a measurement of the population in a defined area. If you increase the population in a defined area ("density"), you get increased competition for housing, because there are more people in a defined area.

No, actually. Demand drives density. Not adding more creates a shortage. You have causation backward. And you need to calm the hysterics-- urban planners indeed decide where people go with a little thing called zoning.

[soleri]

I got back yesterday from China, where density without urban context has made their cities look like a bad lab experiment. Everywhere you look are thousands of new 35-story condo towers without any occupants. Thousands more are still "under construction" except the cranes aren't moving and there are no workers on site. This is an epic housing bubble that will when it finally pops or even just unwinds have devastating economic consequences worldwide.

China is a special case in terms of its rapid industrialization. The middle class has boomed but hundreds of millions of peasants are still living in rural squalor. The government brought many to the cities just work on these condo projects. Its cities are also full of high-rise apartment buildings from 20 years ago that look like the worst of Cabrini-Green. The streets are clogged with cars that the burgeoning middle class drive. The air quality, as you might suspect, is shockingly bad.

The Chinese people are incredibly resourceful, and given their adverse history of wars, political instability, and famine have done some amazing things. Still, their cities are horrifying. You can't impose urban context and values. They develop organically over time and require nurturing, good planning, and reinvestment. China's top-down power structure is notoriously incapable of allowing things to merely evolve.

As terrible as most American cities might be - and I blame our car fixation for many of their problems - they are not nightmares like the ones you see in China. Density must be counterbalanced by quality of life values. Condo towers by themselves won't make a city great. You need something more, like good architecture and contextual design. Portland is doing a very good job balancing these values. Even so, becoming denser won't be pain-free. We who are in a hurry to grow Portland should keep this broader perspective in mind.

[PDXDENSITY]

Originally Posted by soleri

I got back yesterday from China, where density without urban context has made their cities look like a bad lab experiment. Everywhere you look are thousands of new 35-story condo towers without any occupants. Thousands more are still "under construction" except the cranes aren't moving and there are no workers on site. This is an epic housing bubble that will when it finally pops or even just unwinds have devastating economic consequences worldwide.

China is a special case in terms of its rapid industrialization. The middle class has boomed but hundreds of millions of peasants are still living in rural squalor. The government brought many to the cities just work on these condo projects. Its cities are also full of high-rise apartment buildings from 20 years ago that look like the worst of Cabrini-Green. The streets are clogged with cars that the burgeoning middle class drive. The air quality, as you might suspect, is shockingly bad.

The Chinese people are incredibly resourceful, and given their adverse history of wars, political instability, and famine have done some amazing things. Still, their cities are horrifying. You can't impose urban context and values. They develop organically over time and require nurturing, good planning, and reinvestment. China's top-down power structure is notoriously incapable of allowing things to merely evolve.

As terrible as most American cities might be - and I blame our car fixation for many of their problems - they are not nightmares like the ones you see in China. Density must be counterbalanced by quality of life values. Condo towers by themselves won't make a city great. You need something more, like good architecture and contextual design. Portland is doing a very good job balancing these values. Even so, becoming denser won't be pain-free. We who are in a hurry to grow Portland should keep this broader perspective in mind.

I agree with you. I feel, however, that I'm discussing this with people who view NYC or SF density as abhorrent. That's nowhere near china, and Portland needs to go there to keep up with demand over this century. You would think that we were adding a condo in a small Iowa town with how much people hate density going anywhere near them in this city. It's going to happen. It needs to happen. For the good of income inclusivity and our ecosystem.

[Encolpius]

2oh1, did you recently get dumped or something, buddy?

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

Please name the developments underway at the moment in the Pearl or South Waterfront that are being offered subsidies.

A quick google search reveals: Zidell Yards is set to receive $27.4 million from the PDC, or at least was until internal PDC memos leaked to the press revealed they had no intention of building any affordable housing on the site. New developments in Old Town/Chinatown will be eligible for waivers of System Development Charges potentially worth millions if they include 'workforce housing' (that is, housing that will be reserved for a handful of years for people earning as much as 120% of the median income). Commissioners Fritz and (former housing commissioner) Fish opposed this form of subsidy but were outvoted. Also, both the South Waterfront and River District include recent projects by housing nonprofits that were heavily subsidized.

More important, of course, is the fact that these are both still urban renewal districts, despite the fact that neither district could, by any remote stretch, still be considered 'blighted'. That means that the development that has occurred over the past decade or two, to the tune of hundreds of millions in public subsidies, is still not contributing to the general tax rolls. Mayor Hales, despite talking about wrapping up the River District at one point, ultimately only reduced it from 351 acres to 315. And the changes he's implemented won't fully take effect until 2030.

Until Portlanders begin pressuring their political leaders to end these urban renewal districts already, there simply won't be the funds to make the housing, transportation and other investments that the rest of Portland needs.

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

No, actually. Demand drives density. Not adding more creates a shortage.

Demand drives up prices. You're mistakenly hoping for overbuilding, where the supply of housing exceeds the demand, thus driving down prices. That's not realistic beyond very short term bubbles (like the one that happened in South Waterfront, where condo prices were being slashed. That didn't last, did it? Of course not)

Demand drives up prices.

[maccoinnich]

Originally Posted by Encolpius

2oh1, did you recently get dumped or something, buddy?



A quick google search reveals: Zidell Yards is set to receive $27.4 million from the PDC, or at least was until internal PDC memos leaked to the press revealed they had no intention of building any affordable housing on the site. New developments in Old Town/Chinatown will be eligible for waivers of System Development Charges potentially worth millions if they include 'workforce housing' (that is, housing that will be reserved for a handful of years for people earning as much as 120% of the median income). Commissioners Fritz and (former housing commissioner) Fish opposed this form of subsidy but were outvoted. Also, both the South Waterfront and River District include recent projects by housing nonprofits that were heavily subsidized.

More important, of course, is the fact that these are both still urban renewal districts, despite the fact that neither district could, by any remote stretch, still be considered 'blighted'. That means that the development that has occurred over the past decade or two, to the tune of hundreds of millions in public subsidies, is still not contributing to the general tax rolls. Mayor Hales, despite talking about wrapping up the River District at one point, ultimately only reduced it from 351 acres to 315. And the changes he's implemented won't fully take effect until 2030.

Until Portlanders begin pressuring their political leaders to end these urban renewal districts already, there simply won't be the funds to make the housing, transportation and other investments that the rest of Portland needs.

So to summarize: the only examples you can give are subsidies given to non profits building affordable housing. I thought you were for affordable housing?

Also, the changes to the urban renewal areas take place pretty much immediately. I'm not sure where you got the 2030 date from. The River District will be closed long before then anyway.

[PDXDENSITY]

Originally Posted by 2oh1

Demand drives up prices. You're mistakenly hoping for overbuilding, where the supply of housing exceeds the demand, thus driving down prices. That's not realistic beyond very short term bubbles (like the one that happened in South Waterfront, where condo prices were being slashed. That didn't last, did it? Of course not)

Demand drives up prices.

And providing supply, more density in this case, stabilizes rents. SF or NYC isnt expensive because of density, they're expensive because of constraints on supply.

More density would stabilize those markets, not make them qorse. You're being completely ignorant about this market situation.

[58rhodes]

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

And providing supply, more density in this case, stabilizes rents. SF or NYC isnt expensive because of density, they're expensive because of constraints on supply.

More density would stabilize those markets, not make them qorse. You're being completely ignorant about this market situation.

Banks are not going to allow developers to overbuild like what happened in Texas or Arizona some years back.

[PDXDENSITY]

Originally Posted by 58rhodes

Banks are not going to allow developers to overbuild like what happened in Texas or Arizona some years back.

There's no overbuilding going on in Portland proper. Underbuilding, yes, because developers provide imperfect response to demand and regulations cap the market (height restrictions, etc).

Rents will continue to inflate worse than incomes unless we build more/impose inclusionary zoning.

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by 58rhodes

Banks are not going to allow developers to overbuild like what happened in Texas or Arizona some years back.

Exactly. This whole conversation is pointless, and you just perfectly summed up the reason why.

PDXDensity believes in overbuilding, but he won't agree to that word. He'll just keep saying density density density. At one point, he spoke about the need to build homes today to accommodate the population of what Portland is predicted to be decades from now. That's a model for financial ruin. And he refers to SF and NYC as examples of where it would work - but note the word "would" as seen here:

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

NYC and SF are examples where more housing (density) would stabilize rents.

He's talking theory about what he believes would happen rather than the reality of what has happened. It's just something he thinks is true. And as proof that his theory would work, he cites his theory.

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

Would, if they were allowed to build.

PDXDensity, you and I both agree 100% on the need for density as well as on the benefits of density, but you don't seem to understand the affect that an increasing population (demand) has on housing prices. Overbuilding isn't a realistic solution to Portland's escalating housing costs.

[PDXDENSITY]

Originally Posted by 2oh1

Exactly. This whole conversation is pointless, and you just perfectly summed up the reason why.

PDXDensity believes in overbuilding, but he won't agree to that word. He'll just keep saying density density density. At one point, he spoke about the need to build homes today to accommodate the population of what Portland is predicted to be decades from now. That's a model for financial ruin. And he refers to SF and NYC as examples of where it would work - but note the word "would" as seen here:



He's talking theory about what he believes would happen rather than the reality of what has happened. It's just something he thinks is true. And as proof that his theory would work, he cites his theory.



PDXDensity, you and I both agree 100% on the need for density as well as on the benefits of density, but you don't seem to understand the affect that an increasing population (demand) has on housing prices. Overbuilding isn't a realistic solution to Portland's escalating housing costs.

We are currently underbuilding as evidenced by rents spiraling faster than inflation-- no theory there. Density would solve the issue by adding housing stock. It's not theory. There's a SHORTAGE. I do not want sprawl, which is what will be forced to happen if we don't build more in the city.

[65MAX]

Originally Posted by 2oh1

Exactly. This whole conversation is pointless, and you just perfectly summed up the reason why.

PDXDensity believes in overbuilding, but he won't agree to that word. He'll just keep saying density density density. At one point, he spoke about the need to build homes today to accommodate the population of what Portland is predicted to be decades from now. That's a model for financial ruin....

He's talking theory about what he believes would happen rather than the reality of what has happened. It's just something he thinks is true. And as proof that his theory would work, he cites his theory.

Yes, it really is pointless. Overbuilding doesn't increase density, population increase increases density. As our population grows, so does our density. It's as simple as that.

But if you build 200,000 new housing units and the population stays the same, guess what... the density didn't change at all and you have a housing bubble.

There is PLENTY of room within our UGB to accommodate a doubling of our population without obliterating all of our historic single family home enclaves. And we don't have to cram everyone into 20-story tenements on every available block, or co-op (vacate) the ROW of our streets and boulevards to build more housing, or build multi-family housing without courtyards (because, OMG, that's just wasted space that you can cram more units into). Getting all up in arms because they're not putting 2,000 units on the Lloyd Cinemas parking lot versus the 1,000 that they actually are building, well that's just stupid. You (PDXDENSITY) need to just chill out and stop being so hysterical about every single project that goes up just because you want to turn Portland into.... what? Mumbai? Tokyo? Sao Paolo? What exactly ARE you trying to accomplish?

Portland's doing a pretty damn good job of concentrating housing in high density areas where it's appropriate; the Central City, along transit corridors and station areas, town centers throughout the region. What we've accomplished here is pretty great IMO. What you said to somebody else, I think applies more directly to you..... I'm thankful you're not in a position of power to affect our city's built environment because I don't think I would like living here if you had your way.

[PDXDENSITY]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

Yes, it really is pointless. Overbuilding doesn't increase density, population increase increases density. As our population grows, so does our density. It's as simple as that.

But if you build 200,000 new housing units and the population stays the same, guess what... the density didn't change at all and you have a housing bubble.

There is PLENTY of room within our UGB to accommodate a doubling of our population without obliterating all of our historic single family home enclaves. And we don't have to cram everyone into 20-story tenements on every available block, or co-op (vacate) the ROW of our streets and boulevards to build more housing, or build multi-family housing without courtyards (because, OMG, that's just wasted space that you can cram more units into). Getting all up in arms because they're not putting 2,000 units on the Lloyd Cinemas parking lot versus the 1,000 that they actually are building, well that's just stupid. You (PDXDENSITY) need to just chill out and stop being so hysterical about every single project that goes up just because you want to turn Portland into.... what? Mumbai? Tokyo? Sao Paolo? What exactly ARE you trying to accomplish?

Portland's doing a pretty damn good job of concentrating housing in high density areas where it's appropriate; the Central City, along transit corridors and station areas, town centers throughout the region. What we've accomplished here is pretty great IMO. What you said to somebody else, I think applies more directly to you..... I'm thankful you're not in a position of power to affect our city's built environment because I don't think I would like living here if you had your way.

You are taking the very convenient position that we should allow shortage in popular areas and divert development elsewhere. That will cause further shortage and pressure to sprawl. This is not a pointless argument. This is against NIMBYs who think the city shpuld be preserved in amber, screw the ecosystem and poors to sprawl.

[65MAX]

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

We are currently underbuilding as evidenced by rents spiraling faster than inflation-- no theory there. Density would solve the issue by adding housing stock. It's not theory. There's a SHORTAGE. I do not want sprawl, which is what will be forced to happen if we don't build more in the city.

So much wrong in just a few sentences.....

OK, so by your logic, cities that have much higher densities and available housing stock should be cheaper to live in, right? Oh but wait, that can't be right because NY and Boston and DC and SF would all be cheaper than Portland if that was the case.

Have you actually checked vacancy rates in various cities to see if there is any correlation between higher rents and housing "shortages"? Obviously not, because there is no correlation there. You can have ZERO vacancy rates in, oh let's just say Lents. Then a 3% vacancy rate in the Pearl. Is that going to magically make Lents more expensive? No, that's idiotic. It's getting more expensive here because Portland is becoming more and more popular, and people who move here are more than willing to pay higher rents because it's still cheaper than California or Chicago or the eastern seaboard. Our vacancy rates would have nothing to do with that.

Also, exactly what "sprawl" are you afraid of? We've had an UGB for what, 40 years now? We can ONLY build IN the cities. Right? So what are you so afraid of?

[PDXDENSITY]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

So much wrong in just a few sentences.....

OK, so by your logic, cities that have much higher densities and available housing stock should be cheaper to live in, right? Oh but wait, that can't be right because NY and Boston and DC and SF would all be cheaper than Portland if that was the case.

Have you actually checked vacancy rates in various cities to see if there is any correlation between higher rents and housing "shortages"? Obviously not, because there is no correlation there. You can have ZERO vacancy rates in, oh let's just say Lents. Then a 3% vacancy rate in the Pearl. Is that going to magically make Lents more expensive? No, that's idiotic.

Also, exactly what "sprawl" are you afraid of? We've had an UGB for what, 40 years now? We can ONLY build IN the cities. Right? So what are you so afraid of?

Youre convoluting my points intentionally.

Those cities are dense because of demand, and they are more expensive than inflation becausw of over-preservation and prevention of even more density.

I know it seems complicated, but shortage is the reason. And my fight here is to prevent pressure on moving the UGB outward. It doesnt need to be.

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

Overbuilding doesn't increase density, population increase increases density. As our population grows, so does our density. It's as simple as that.

THIS.

Originally Posted by 65MAX

But if you build 200,000 new housing units and the population stays the same, guess what... the density didn't change at all and you have a housing bubble.

THIS.

Originally Posted by 65MAX

There is PLENTY of room within our UGB to accommodate a doubling of our population without obliterating all of our historic single family home enclaves. And we don't have to cram everyone into 20-story tenements on every available block, or co-op (vacate) the ROW of our streets and boulevards to build more housing, or build multi-family housing without courtyards (because, OMG, that's just wasted space that you can cram more units into). Getting all up in arms because they're not putting 2,000 units on the Lloyd Cinemas parking lot versus the 1,000 that they actually are building, well that's just stupid. You (PDXDENSITY) need to just chill out and stop being so hysterical about every single project that goes up just because you want to turn Portland into.... what? Mumbai? Tokyo? Sao Paolo? What exactly ARE you trying to accomplish?

THIS.

But even in Mumbai or in the worst parts of the Beijing Hutong, competition for housing still drives up costs.

I can't believe we're even having this conversation. It's downright silly.

Originally Posted by 65MAX

There is PLENTY of room within our UGB to Portland's doing a pretty damn good job of concentrating housing in high density areas where it's appropriate; the Central City, along transit corridors and station areas, town centers throughout the region. What we've accomplished here is pretty great IMO.

THIS.

And thank you for saying it. Absolutely.

I would add that Portland is doing a fantastic job of finding opportunities by looking inward whereas most cities sprawl outward. South Waterfront was a brownfield. Eventually, it's going to stretch all the way to Riverplace/downtown. As recently as the late 90s, the Pearl was unrecognizable compared to what it is today. I remember walking through the neighborhood in 99. It looked like a war zone. Almost nothing was there except for construction. Now, it's a booming neighborhood that newbies think has always been there, which probably explains why they don't see how massive of a change that neighborhood is in terms of density in the inner city. 20 years from now, we'll say the same thing about Lloyd, though that's going to be a very different neighborhood than the Pearl. But there will be people who came after the change and won't be able to understand that the neighborhood hadn't always been a neighborhood. I don't know what it was in the 1950s, but by the 1990s, it was a dead zone in terms of housing. By the 2020s, it'll be booming. I could go on and on with real examples of massively increasing density. It's happening, and it'll continue to happen. I predict huge changes for Goose Hollow in years to come. The O is a dying paper, and at some point, it'll make sense for them to sell their buildings there. They'll be leveled, creating entire city blocks for development, and that'll be a catalyst for even more development in the neighborhood. The Post Office site in the Pearl will be another huuuuge infill project sooner than later.

The idea that we're not building 500+ foot skyscrapers on every block through the city isn't proof that Portland's density isn't rapidly increasing. The fact that we're not raising entire neighborhoods of houses like Ladd's Addition in order to make some dude on an internet forum happy isn't proof that Portland's density isn't rapidly increasing.

Originally Posted by 65MAX

What you [PDXdensity] said to somebody else, I think applies more directly to you..... I'm thankful you're not in a position of power to affect our city's built environment because I don't think I would like living here if you had your way.

THIS.

I'm a car-free guy who absolutely adores density. I live in a high rise district and I love it. But Portland wouldn't be Portland if the entire city turned into my idea of an urban oasis. The city's quirky culture would be gone.

A militant approach of a relative newcomer telling Portlanders what their city has to be isn't helpful. Talking about where we (who is this "we"?) need to put newcomers... it's militant and counterproductive.

I don't doubt that you're probably a great guy whose heart is in the right place, but you're missing the basic fact that as a population increases in a fixed area, density increases, and as density increases, the land in that given area becomes more valuable, which drives up prices. Homes become more expensive. Retail spaces become more expensive. Demand for services increases, which drives up costs for those services.

The idea that we'll just build more high rises and everything will get cheaper simply makes no sense. There's no logic to it.

The only proof that density drives down housing prices is found in Detroit and New Orleans, where population density collapsed (N.O. because of Katrina, and Detroit, because of the demise of the city's economy).

[65MAX]

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

You are taking the very convenient position that we should allow shortage in popular areas and divert development elsewhere.

OK, now you're making absolutely no sense whatsoever. What does that even mean? WHO is allowing shortages? WHAT popular areas? And diverting development WHERE? Complete nonsequitors.

[PDXDENSITY]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

OK, now you're making absolutely no sense whatsoever. What does that even mean? WHO is allowing shortages? WHAT popular areas? And diverting development WHERE? Complete nonsequitors.

No non sequiturs. People demanding housing not be built due to parking or shadows. Landowners are causing the shortage. Landowners, read: single family home owners.

2oh1, i am not advocating for high rises everywhere. I am saying the protection of bungalows is anathema to Portland planning. It will force development on the periphery.

Even if we let everyone build as much as they wanted, it's driven by the market. It won't destroy neighborhoods-- yet this is what people in bungalow enclaves are claiming. It's going to destroy our region to sprawl and encourage more people into Vancouver if we don't fight NIMBYs who don't care about density supporting services or protecting the ecosystem.